Landmark Judgements

KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra) – 1961

Judgement

It was held by the court that the conduct of the accused clearly showed that the murder committed by him was a deliberate one and the facts of the case do not attract the provision of Exception I of section 300 of IPC as the accused by adducing evidence failed to bring the case under General Exception Of IPC .Therefore, as a result, the court convicted Nanavati under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him of Imprisonment for Life.

IC Golaknath v State of Punjab

Judgement

It was very clear with the then existing political scenario the existing decision of supreme court of giving absolute powers to parliament to amend fundamental rights also was over ruled. A new concept of prospective over ruling was made. Thus in this decision it was held that parliament had no rights at all to amend the fundamental rights.

Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain

Judgement

The clause of struck down by the Court on the ground that it violated free and fair elections which was an essential feature that formed the Basic Stuctute of teh Indian Constitution. The exclusion of judicial review in election disputes in this manner resulted in damaging the Basic Structure.

Kesavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala

Judgement

Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. He prayed that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969 (Act 35 of 1969) be declared unConstitutional, ultra vires and void.

Himmat Lal ShahVsCommissioner of Police

Maneka GandhiVs Union of India

Judgement

One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21. This a law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.

Ramesh Dalal Vs Union of India

Judgement

1. The Cinematograph Act contains provisions to maintain the susceptibilities of the Public. 2. The Approval by the examining committee must be given full weight. 3. The Correct Approach would be reading the book or screening of the serial from ordinary man. 4. It was found by the division bench that the picture viewed was entirely capable of creating a peaceful impression on to public and that it is a naked truth of History. 5. The Court was unable to see any violation of Art 21 and Art 25 and there is no such danger to the communal atmosphere

Minerva Mills v Union of India

Judgement

In its ruling, the Supreme Court declared sections 4 & 55 of the 42nd amendment as unconstitutional.[2] Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, had added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 of the Constitution which read

Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum

Judgement

Supreme Court in a unanimous decision dismissed the appeal of Mohd. Ahmed Khan and confirmed the judgment of the High Court. Supreme Court held that “there is no conflict between Muslim Personal law and provisions of Section 125 on the question of the Muslim husband’s obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself.” Moreover, court further referred to the Holy Quran where it held that “there was no doubt that the Quran imposes an obligation on the Muslim husband to make provision for or to provide maintenance to the divorced wife.

MC Mehta v Union Of India

Judgement

The first question which requires to be considered is as to what is the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32.The Court wholly endorsed what had been stated by Bhagwati, J. in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors. as regards the true scope and ambit of Article 32. It may now be taken as well settled that Article 32 does not merely confer power on this Court to issue a direction, order or writ for enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for that purpose this Court has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the fundamental rights.

Indra Sawhney v UOI November

Judgement

The 9 judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 6-3 majority gave the following judgements:- I. Backward class of citizen in Article 16(4) can be identified on the basis of the caste system & not only on economic basis. II. Article 16(4) is not an exception of Article 16(1). It is an instance of the classification. Reservation can be made under article 16(1). III. Backward classes in Article 16(4) were not similar to as socially & educationally backward in article 15(4). IV. Creamy layer must be excluded from the backward classes. V. Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into backward & more backward classes. VI. A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only & exclusively with reference to economic criteria. VII. Reservation shall not exceed 50%. VIII. Reservation can be made by the ‘EXECUTIVE ORDER’. IX. No reservation in promotion. X. Permanent Statutory body to examine complains of over – inclusion / under – inclusion. XI. Majority held that there is no need to express any opinion on the correctness or adequacy of the exercise done by the MONDAL COMMISSION. XII. Disputes regarding new criteria can be raised only in the Supreme Court.

SR Bommai v Union of India

Judgement

The Proclamation of emergency u/art 356 is subject to Judicial Review. The relevancy and the need of such proclamation shall be struck down by the concerned court if found malafide. 1. The Power of President under 356 is subject to restrictions. The opinion is formed is based on the report of the Governor and not sole satisfaction. 2. The Supreme Court can struck down the proclamation even if both the houses of Parliament passes the same on Malafide grounds.

Vishaka v State of Rajasthan

Judgement

In disposing of the writ petition with directions, it was held that: “The fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade or profession depends on the availability of a ‘safe’ working environment. The right to life means life with dignity. The primary responsibility for ensuring such safety and dignity through suitable legislation, and the creation of a mechanism for its enforcement, belongs to the legislature and the executive. When, however, instances of sexual harassment resulting in violations of Arts 14, 19 and 21 are brought under Art 32, effective redress requires that some guidelines for the protection of these rights should be laid down to fill the legislative vacuum.”

State of Tamil Nadu V Suhas Katti

Judgement

After the victim made the complaint in February 2004, the police traced the accused, who was the victim's friend, to Mumbai and arrested him. The police found the accused was interested in marrying the victim but she turned him down and married someone else instead. The marriage, however, ended in divorce, which is when the accused started contacting the victim again but she rejected him again.

Rameshwar Prasad v Union Of India

Judgement

(1.) THIS petition puts in issue the dissolution of Bihar Legislative Assembly made in exercise of the power conferred by Article 356 of the Constitution of India. When the matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench sitting during vacation on 10th June, 2005, the Bench noticed the principle of limited scope of judicial review in a matter of this nature, as settled by this Court in the case of S. R. Bommai and Ors.

Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Th. Cbi

Judgement

In October 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Santosh Kumar Singh but reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment.[6] Priyadarshini's father expressed disappointment with the CBI for failing to appeal against this decision.[7

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State

Judgement

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. Though the trial Court has acquitted the applicant-accused for the offences with which he was charged, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.